Talk:Virginia

Highway Functional Classification System

Highway Functional Classification System has been discussed in other places for US road classification tagging, but hasn't gained traction for one reason or another (inaccurate/out-of-date maps according to NE2). However, looking at areas of VA that I'm familiar with, [HFCS for VA] seems to be accurate and reasonably in-date (2005). The mapping table on the Highway Functional Classification System looks good, though I'd like to move other freeways and expressways to trunk which would make SR 150 and SR 288 in Richmond trunks; Hull St (US 360) which is mapped as trunk for some reason would be a primary until it left the urban area. --Cdombroski 16:25, 4 August 2011 (BST)

Interesting, I had never heard of HFCS before. Taking a look in my area, the attribute mapping doesn't seem too bad, however we must keep in mind that we need to use the classifications as defined by OSM, which may or may not agree with HFCS. However, if there is disagreement or ambiguity about what classification to use, you can certainly use HFCS as supporting information. Additionally you could add an HFCS specific key to indicate the classification (though I think there are some problems with the in-use HFCS=* key). -- Joshdoe 11:53, 18 August 2011 (BST)

Labelling county/state roads

In most other states, there's a clear delineation between "state routes" and "county roads", with the latter being entirely designated and maintained at the county level; but in Virginia the non-primary roads (numbered >600) are officially state routes, and are designated and maintained at the state level, but have different signage from the primary state routes, are numbered uniquely only within each county (numbers get reused in different counties), and are thus more like the other states' "county roads".

So far, so good, but where this becomes an issue is in what to use for the ref=* tag for them. I have seen reference numbers both of the form "CR 6xx" and "SR 6xx", and it's not clear which is the better choice. I tagged a few myself with just plain "6xx" before it occurred to me that I should ask around and see what other people thought. :) I do think the simpler form "6xx" is the cleanest, but any of the options could be defended, I think. Thoughts? --Blahedo 07:19, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

I'll add that for the "real" state routes, the ones numbered <600, I've seen both "SR 3xx" and "VA 3xx", so there's inconsistency there too. I suppose it's plausible that there are "VA 6xx" out there for the county routes as well, although I haven't noticed any. --Blahedo 07:56, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

A further addition. I was looking at the MapQuest Open render and saw that it shows different badges for roads based on whether they start with "VA" or "SR" on the one hand (rounded triangle) or "CR" or plain numbers on the other hand (rounded rectangle). (As an aside, this is somewhat state-specific---other states have unrounded rectangles, circles, PA even has its characteristic keystone shape.) My point here is not to suggest tagging-for-the-renderer, but it does remind us that if the tags don't make a distinction, the renderer can't make a distinction. So: even absent other comments here, I think I have good reason to change "SR 6xx" and "VA 6xx" to something else (I'm leaning to plain "6xx" as this is what appears on the signs). However, I won't delete existing "CR" or change existing "SR" to "VA" (or vice versa) until I figure out what the broader consensus is, if any. --Blahedo 02:29, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Independent City Boundaries

I'm fairly new to Open Street Map, and have been using a fair bit of the data, mostly in reverse geocoding. One thing that is driving me crazy is that when I reverse geocode several of the Independent Cities, it comes back with a county. Here's the list I have so far. I would like to fix this myself, but it's beyond my current skill for Open Street Map. Here's the list, however, of Independent Cities, along with the county I'm getting in my Reverse Geocoding call: